The first adventure Don Quixote meets with after enlisting Sancho Panza is with the wind-mills on the plain. The knight recognises them as outrageous giants. The squire politely tries to explain that what is before them are innocent wind-mills, not giants.
“It seems very plain, said the knight, that you are but a novice in adventures….”
Adventures require imagination. Sancho would seem to lack such qualities, though he can easily imagine himself as the governor of an island. So is Don Quixote gripped by madness here? He is certainly possessed, but besides discounting Sancho’s opinion that his intended opponents were wind-mills, he also would not
use the intelligence of his own eyes, tho’ he was very near them….
What other adventures are there to be had if one does not use one’s imagination? Don Quixote attacks, and the first miscreant breaks his lance and overthrows him. Sancho tries to say “I told you so.” But for Don Quixote there is always a logical explanation:
“the affairs of war, are more than anything, subject to change. How much more so, as I believe, nay, am certain, that the sage Freston, who stole my closet and books, has converted those giants into mills, in order to rob me of the honour of their overthrow;”
and always a reason to be positive:
“but, in the end, all his treacherous arts will but little avail against the vigour of my sword.”
The chapter ends oddly, in self-reference, in the middle of another adventure. It is continued in the next chapter of the second book. Does anyone know how this was originally published, all together or in installments? Installments would explain the cliffhanger ending of Book One. Otherwise, why break one adventure into two chapters? Why not end one chapter with the adventure of the wind-mills, and begin a new chapter with the next adventure complete?
Tilting at Windmills 
“What other adventures are there to be had if one does not use one’s imagination?” Great question! I admire DQ for his energy and optimism and imagination — he makes something of his life, mad or not, doesn’t he?
I’m pretty sure Part I was all published as one text in 1605, divided into four parts. Part II was published in 1615, and there the four divisions were done away with. Even though it wasn’t published in installments, it was very common at the time to end the chapter in a cliffhanger. Ercilla in his colonial epic, “La Araucana,” even let a battle wait for about 10 years until he published its continuation, and some say Cervantes was influenced by his comtemporary.
I actually really like how he postpones the resolution of the battle with the Basque. First, becaue textuality wins out over “reality”. Second, because there’s a ironic comment on the tradition of the cliffhanger. And lastly, as has been noted here, because the narrator himself becomes a character of the novel when he describes his searching for the continuation. And that that coninuation for the greatest of all knights of Christendom is only available in an Arabic text for which he needs a Arabic translator? Wow! Certainly nothing George Bush could have written if he could write. 😉
I like your point, Dauthendey, that Cervantes privileges textuality over “reality.” I went to a talk on DQ in NYC a couple years ago, where I heard Salman Rushdie talking about that Arabic translator — it was really cool.
Well, Dauthendey, I don’t know what Bush has to do with any of that, but I agree that you make a good point.
Ok, sorry, quillhill, no more overt politics. But, I mean, here’s a guy who personally suffered twice through the Muslim threat: He maimed his hand in the battle of Lepanto and was held captive by Arabs for 5 years in Northern Africa. And how does he respond? He has an Arab “write” basically the entire novel in Arabic. Before I read DQ, I had no idea that the greatest novel of Spanish lit and one of the greatest of world lit was a “translation from the Arabic.”
Is this a critique of Castilian chauvanism, a critique of Spanish empire, a call to “multiculturalism”? After all, the crown expelled over 500,000 Arab converts (Moriscos) from Spain just four years after Part I was published, so this was a very urgent question at the time. Are aspects of Part II a response to the expulsion?
Idunno. Praising and condemning Arabs at the same time was nothing new in Spain at that time, so it’s hard for me to buy that interpretation fully. But I’d be interested in hearing what you all think about the portrait of the Arab in DQ, maybe once we get to Part II. I still don’t know what to think…
I think Cervantes naming the fictional Arab author “Mr. Eggplant” says something… Considering his opinion of chivalric literature, him casting an Arab as an author of such a book is no compliment!
But wait, I don’t get it — the Arab wrote a version of the story he’s telling himself — the Arab’s writing is his source, right? So why is it not a compliment? And I wonder about his attitude toward chivalric literature; yes, he’s making fun of it and having a blast doing it, but doesn’t he depend on it too, and doesn’t writing a whole book making fun of chivalric literature imply some kind of fondness for it? Particularly given the comic tone?
I’d say it’s not a compliment because it’s a ridiculous story! It’s just another part of the satire. “Finding” and translating an old tale was apparently a popular conceit in chivalric literature. Cervantes skewers the credulity of people who believed in those stories with his (narrator’s) comments about how true and accurate the story must be. I think he has nothing but contempt for that literature and is trying to blow the whistle on it. Comedy is just his way of getting the message across in an entertaining way.
Sylvia, I’m only familiar with old-school chivalric literature: Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gottfried von Straßburg, etc, and there’s no conceit of translating of manuscripts in those works. But I’m not familiar with the stuff MC is criticizing: Could you give some examples?
From what I’ve read of the secondary lit, what MC is doing is rather unique and surprising, especially for us living in the post-modern age. I’m talking about all the layers of narrators and the metafictionality. Of course, you are absolutely right about reading the work as total satire and comedy–that’s how it was read all the way up to the 18th century, when German Romantics totally turned things around and started seeing DQ as a hero, which is how most modern readers read him, I’m pretty sure (and judging from the various posts here, that’s true.)
So, the problem I see with viewing DQ today as total satire and as nothing but a “ridiculous story,” is that well, doesn’t it sorta negate all those interesting metafictional aspects? I mean, though I have a hard time buying that MC was criticizing Castilian chauvanism, as has been suggested by some, I still like to think of the novel as showing that the world simply can no longer be viewed and understood through only a Western, Christian lens. We simply have to face the fact that “reality” and “truth” is multi-faceted.
I mean, I just read a quote from Voltaire comparing DQ with Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso: “Orlando captures one’s interest while no one is interested in DQ, whom Cervantes represents simply as a fool on whom japes are constantly practiced.” As a modern reader, I just can’t read the book that way. I think modern readers are interested in DQ. Same with all that metafictional and multiple narrator stuff.
Very interesting stuff here. Dauthendey, I’m intrigued by your description of the way readings of DQ have changed over time, and I see that my way of reading it is very much modern — I can’t believe that Cervantes doesn’t have at least some fondness for DQ and for the literature he’s mocking — I just don’t see the point of writing a huge novel solely to express contempt for other literature. It seems there has to be something larger at stake. My sense is that Cervantes saw chivalric literature as an opportunity for a wonderful joke AND through mocking it as an opportunity to think about life in larger ways (the madness stuff, storytelling, love and desire, etc., all the major themes). There’s just such joy in storytelling in the novel that I have a hard time believing Cervantes doesn’t understand DQ’s love of chivalric stories at least a little bit.
But I generally have a hard time “getting” satire, so I know this is affecting how I read the novel. I see two forms of satire, really — one is the Jonathan Swift type, which is really angry and bitter and satirical through and through. And then there’s another type, which is more gentle and poking fun in a lighter way. And I can’t help but see DQ as in the latter category. I’m curious to learn more about the history of DQ, though, and how earlier readers responded to it.
It’s not exactly out of character if I take a classical approach to the book! For me, truth and reality are most definitely singular nouns. I don’t see anything in the book that approves of Don Quixote’s delusion (and much that punishes it!) so I assume Cervantes thought the same.
I am much more interested in Cervantes’ message than the techniques he uses to get that message across (not that the latter aren’t masterfully executed). To me the satire is as plain as day. What could be a more serious subject (to a man of ideas) than the intellectual decay and moral hypocrisy of his own society?
Do we say that Jon Stewart secretly likes George Bush because he spends so much time making fun of him? Of course not. Humour is just a way of getting away with criticizing the powerful.
As an aside: One of the books on my Fantasy/Fairy Tale/Mythology/Folklore Challenge list is The Princess Bride, which seems to have a lot of similarities with DQ. It has a (fictional) narrator who abridges a (ridiculous) fairy tale by a (nonexistent) author, with the author behind the scenes thoroughly lampooning the fairy tale genre. The underlying theme (as I understand it from reading reviews)–keeping heritage alive in an immigrant family–is more personal than DQ’s themes, though. These two books would make an interesting comparative study!
Dauthenday, I found a Wikipedia article on the use of “false documents” as a conceit in various forms of art, including fiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_document#False_documents_in_fiction
I read somewhere something to the effect that in the first book Cervantes was focused on the satire, and he didn’t really understand his characters or their meanings until the second book.
Very interesting. Can’t wait to get there!
Dorothy, I totally agree about writing such a huge novel just to attack chivalric romances. And, frankly, if that were all it were about, I’m not sure I’d be interested in reading such a tome! But it’s not, as surely Syliva will agree–I mean, for example, DQ is basically absent during the the entire Sierre Morena episodes. There is a lot more going on in the novel.
I think MC discovered that his protagonists might be interesting in and of themselves already in Part I, at least by chapter 17, when DQ actually helps SP get ready to leave the inn: After all the talk of the knight errant being of a different social stature than his squire, here he is physically helping his friend, SP. And already in Part I there are numerous touching scenes of friendship between DQ and SP. I think the friendship between DQ and SP in Part I would make an excellent paper topic, for example.
Sylvia, thanks for the link. But none of those examples are of chivalric romances and it looks like MC is the earliest author on that list, no?
As for MC’s message… What is it? Just how chivalric romances are bad and are ruining society? Sorta like Plato’s condemnation of literature? I dunno. I mean, the Sierra Morena conflicts are all resolved by means of acting, by putting on a play, by theatricality. No? I mean, is MC criticizing Dorotea’s imitation of chivalric romances too? Doesn’t look like it; seems like she is portrayed as a heroine.
I think I should ammend what I wrote above about DQ as “hero.” I just meant that many modern readers can see in him a bit of ourselves: Fighting for the just cause, however futile that attempt might seem. Or seeing in a poor, simple, country girl like Alonza a princess. That doesn’t mean that I don’t notice that DQ is often a buffon.
That Wikipedia list is certainly not exhaustive. I’ve read in more than one place that “false documents” was a common conceit in the chivalric literature, one of the many that Cervantes spoofed.
From what I’ve read, Spain was becoming quite backward during the time of Cervantes, and their escapist literature was a symptom of that. You might say “reality” shows and Jerry Springer would be some equivalents today. I see it as his point of entry for commenting on his whole society. And he does it so entertainingly that even if it were just about making fun of those books it would be worth reading, I think. That’s the thing–the book works on multiple levels. This brings me back to The Princess Bride. Many readers don’t realize there is no S. Morgenstern or that there are serious themes in the book. For them it’s just a funny adventure story, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Same goes with Shakespeare. There are raunchy jokes for the pit and deeper meanings for the balconies. That’s part of what makes them great.
Hi all. I am finally going to get some vacation–going to a fjord in Norway–so I won’t be posting for a while. I will be interested in what you guys discover about our dear knight errant in the meantime!
Sylvia, I’ve never heard that MC is spoofing the literature with the narrator looking for the account of the continuation of a battle in medias res, then finding it in a totally different language and of a different culture, and relying on a translator also of that culture to make sense of it. Also, not sure why you say it is a case of a “false document.”
I noticed at your blog that you bought the Francisco Rico edition of DQ. Is that the one you are reading? I don’t remember reading any of his notes saying that MC was just copying the chivalric lit in this instance. At the moment, I don’t happen to have the Rico edition at hand, so I can’t check. But please point me to it or some other source that discusses this matter, since it is new to me.
I’m not reading the Rico edition–the Spanish is beyond me right now–but the Grossman translation. Some of her notes alert to the reader to the particular conceits that Cervantes copies, for instance:
“The ’second author’ is Cervantes (that is, the narrator), who claims, in the following chapter, to have arranged for the translation of another (fictional) author’s book. This device was common in novels of chivalry.”
“The break in narrative action between parts was typical of novels of chivalry.”
“A commonplace in chivalric fiction was that the knight’s adventures (Platir’s, for example) had been recorded by a wise man and then translated, the translation being the novel.”
…and so on. No doubt Cervantes has exaggerated and twisted some details to create the satire, but I assume he followed his advice in the Prologue:
“It has only to make use of mimesis in the writing, and the more precise that is, the better the writing will be.”
And the more devastating the satire!
Have fun in the fjords!
Incidentally, I took the term “false document” from the Wikipedia article, which says:
“Miguel de Cervantes claims that all the chapters but the first in Don Quixote are translated from an Arabic manuscript by Cide Hamete Benengeli. He is parodying a plot device of chivalry books.”
This is an interesting discussion. What has occurred to me, reading DQ, is that I realize MC could not have anticipated how people through the centuries would read the book. (For example, isn’t it interesting that Duathenday brought up metafiction — a device, or at least a reading, that I believe is quite modern.)
How did MC do it? Well, he told a damn good story, damned well. And he really has a handle on his characters. So far in my reading (I’m a little over 200 pages), though I may doubt their sanity or actions at times, I don’t ever doubt their essence. They are acting as they should act (if that makes sense).
The Arabic question is very interesting — I can’t wait to visit Spain in November and see for myself all of the Arabic influence. Nothing like getting it from — excuse the expression –the horse’s mouth.